Urgent and comprehensive planning for low-income urban areas

Wendell Cox Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers Paris and Wendell Cox Consultancy St. Louis, USA

ABSTRACT: There is an urgent need to raise the incomes of urban residents in lower income nations. Effective transport can assist in this process by expanding the labor market available to workers. Some lower- income nations seek to emulate public transport strategies from high-income urban areas. These strategies, however, have produced counterproductive results. Lower-income urban areas would do well to focus on less expensive strategies that expand mobility and access for larger numbers of people.

1 INTRODUCTION measures should be in place to evaluate the performance of transport systems and projects in Urban mobility has become virtually terms of their mobility and access achievements per democratized in the high-income world. The process unit of expenditure. began in the 19th century with the development of urban passenger transport networks and was later This paper reviews developments in high-income broadened by the near universal availability of the urban areas with to identify policies in lower income automobile for people living in areas with less than urban areas that might retain higher public transport comprehensive public transport service. For market shares as greater affluence is achieved. example, 2000 census data indicates that 92% of US Based upon continuing international trends toward households outside the city of New York (the only democracy and economic liberalism, it is assumed US urban area with high public transport ridership) that citizens of lower income urban areas will now have access to automobiles, including largely be free to live and travel, as they prefer, with approximately one-half of households on public minimal little public policy compulsion. It will also assistance. Certain factors appear to have be assumed that it is an object of public policy to contributed to greater reliance on auto transport than expand affluence throughout lower-income urban might otherwise have been the case. Unless these areas. factors are mitigated in lower income urban areas, it would seem likely that greater affluence will bring a 2. HIGH INCOME URBAN AREAS similar reduction of public transport market shares. 2.1 Decentralization of Urban Form Urban mobility and access is important to the expansion of affluence and reduction of poverty. Few public policy issues receive more attention than Employment and income producing possibilities are urban sprawl (used as descriptive, not pejorative enhanced as accessibility to the entire urban area is term). For centuries, improvements in transportation improved; with the productivity of urban areas technology have impelled decentralization of urban increasing 2.4% for every 10% increase in access to areas. For example, central Paris arrondissements urban labor markets (Prud’homme & Chong-Woon, lost 74% of their population since peaking in 1861, 1998). It is especially important for lower income while New York’s Lower East Side dropped 70% urban areas to focus on strategies that maximize from 1910. The automobile has replaced the access, because of their limited financial resources. omnibus and tram as the (so far) ultimate facilitator Transport planning should be directed toward urgent of low-density, decentralized life styles. (short term) implementation of effective strategies that provide comprehensive mobility and access As affluence and automobile ownership have throughout the entire urban area. In addition, increased, both residential and commercial locations have spread widely within the urban area. Virtually The average household income in virtually all high- all urban growth has occurred outside the core areas income urban areas has risen since 1960. Greater since 1950, as is evidenced by the examples of affluence allowed middle-income households to Tokyo, Paris, London, New York, Toronto and afford cars and detached or semi-detached Sydney, where core area population losses have residences in the suburbs (used herein to denote occurred. In many urban areas the expanding outside the historic core, rather than non-central boundaries of the central city have masked the loss. municipalities). An exception is Los Angeles, where core area densities have increased, but a rate well below that 2.3 Competition from the Automobile of areas outside the core (in 1990, Los Angeles had the largest area of greater than 4,000 per square The new, more dispersed travel patterns required a kilometer density in the New World). While the more ubiquitous form of transport, a role that was least dense urban areas are in the US (and Australia), effectively served by the auto. The automobile offers the greatest losses in urban area densities have at least these advantages over public transport: occurred outside the US (Cox, 2002b). • Span of service: The auto is available 24 Commercial areas were decentralized along with hours. Public transport service is often not residences. This is evident in the declining share of available during certain hours of the day. employment located in central business districts. • Service frequency: The auto is available “on From 1960 to 1990, CBD employment market share demand,” in contrast to the schedules on losses averaged 14% per decade among 29 urban which public transport operates. areas. In 1960, CBDs contained up to 50% of urban • Origin Access: The auto often more closely area employment. By 1990, average CBD share had accesses trip origins than public transport. declined to 14.5% (Cox, 2002b). An obvious trend • Destination Access: The auto often more was the suburban “edge city,” employment centers, closely accesses trip destinations than public which came in rival CBD job numbers in, for transport. Indeed, public transport service example, Denver and Detroit. These developments may not be available to certain locations in were occurring throughout the high-income world, the urban area. in locations like La Defense in Paris, the Arlanda • No-transfer service: The auto allows a direct corridor in Stockholm and along the MacDonald- trip from origin to destination, while public Cartier Freeway in Toronto. Yet, generally, the transport may require transferring from one number of jobs neither in the CBD nor the “edge vehicle to another to complete a trip. cities” tended to be the greatest. For example, 75% • Travel time: All of the advantages above of employment in Atlanta, renown for its “edge city” combine to make the auto a quicker mode of development, is outside the major centers. transport for most trips.

The combination of residential and commercial As a result, the effective size of the urban travel dispersion represented a two-front challenge to market is enlarged, for employment, education, public transport. Dispersion of residences meant that shopping and other trips. With respect to shopping, public transport would need to provide additional this led to development of larger establishments, services throughout the urban area to maintain its such as “hyper-markets” and “big-box” retailers, market share. But the problem became even more which have improved the quality of life by reducing complex with the dispersion of commercial consumer prices. In the United States, the locations, because public transport is most effective geographical labor market area available to where it can serve concentrated destinations (the automobile users is 5.3 times that available to public best examples are the declining CBDs). The urban transport users (Cox, 2002a). form in which public transport carried large numbers of people from dense residential neighborhoods to 2.4The Public Transport Market Situation dense employment centers represented less and less of the urban area. The majority of travel in most high-income urban areas is now by automobile. On average, barely 20% At the same time, a large number of people of motorized travel in Europe is by public transport, continued to live in dense urban cores, especially in with 6% to 8% in Canada and Australia and 2% in Europe and Japan and in a few New World urban the US. The highest public transport market shares areas, such as New York, Chicago, Toronto and outside Japan are less than 30%. In contrast, Tokyo- Sydney. Yokohama and Osaka-Kobe-Kyoto retain public transport market shares of 50% or more (Cox, 2.4 Rising Affluence 2002b), representing exceptional circumstances that will be outlined later. The present discussion relates to public transport in high-income nations that have • Outside Core Residents: The outside core relied heavily on government subsidies (in Western residents include people living outside the Europe and the New World). dense cores, who take public transport, principally for work trips to the central In most urban areas, public transport’s market business district (CBD). Because little auto- share has fallen sharply. Since 1960, share declined competitive service is provided to more than 50% in Australia, Europe and the US. employment locations outside the CBD Recent data indicates losses averaging 1.5% (Cox, 2002b). annually in Canada and Japan. Even urban areas that have implemented strong public transport and urban Whether in a Houston suburb, or the suburbs of containment strategies have seen little progress Paris, Portland or Perth, it can be virtually toward attracting people from automobiles. impossible to get to a job in another suburb by Examples are Perth, where market share has public transport that is auto competitive. Indeed, for remained unchanged and Portland, where market all practical purposes, it is only to downtown that share declined 14% since before opening two light public transport can attract substantial numbers of rail lines (Cox, 2002b). people that would otherwise travel by car. Where public transport is auto-competitive, market shares By the 1990s, public transport’s market in high- can be substantial. More than 70% of downtown income urban areas had become limited to a workers use transit in New York, London, Paris, comparatively small market of “captive riders,” who Tokyo and Sydney. Even smaller urban areas in the are unable to afford automobiles, and “choice US, such as Portland, Denver, Minneapolis and riders,” who choose public transport despite being Houston have downtown transit work trip market able to afford autos. In the US, the “captive” market shares of more than 15%. However, the rational represents 70% of public transport ridership (Center choice of public transport is generally not available for Transportation Research, 1998). Captive riders to employment locations outside the CBD because are appropriately thought of as a residual market, little auto-competitive service is provided. As a which is gradually disappearing as auto availability result, non-CBD public transport commuters tend to improves. have low incomes (captive riders). For example, in the US, non-CBD commuters have incomes 40% For public transport to keep and attract the below average and only 20% above the poverty line continually larger “choice” rider market requires (Cox, 2002b). service that competes with the auto, especially with respect to travel time. In most high-income urban As a result of the demographic and economic areas, “choice” riders include two broad categories, trends since World War II, most travel is now in based upon residential location. markets that are not well served by auto-competitive public transport. The dilemma is illustrated by a • Core Residents: Core residents include prototypical high-density urban area (Table 1). With people living in the dense cores of the urban 13% of the transport demand in the dense urban areas that have high levels of public transport core, and another 16% of demand between suburbs service. These two factors facilitate a high and the core, 70% of the demand is elsewhere. This quality of life without an automobile, 70% of trips is generally not available by auto- something generally not possible in the rest competitive public transport service. Overall, 69% of the urban area. The ville de Paris, inner of trips would not be served by auto-competitive London (former London County Council public transport. area), the city of New York (except Staten Island), inner Chicago (adjacent to the Table 1. Auto Competitive Market Segments: Prototypical “Loop” and the north side), Tokyo (23 High Density Urban Area wards), the city of San Francisco, central Trip End Categories Paris Auto- Market Toronto and central Sydney are examples of Trip Compe- Served by Volume titive Public dense urban cores with high levels of public (1998) Service Transport transport service. Dense urban cores often 1 Core (Both Trips Ends) 13.2% 90% 12% occur in the urban areas of Western 2 Core & Suburb 16.4% 75% 12% European, but they tend to represent a 3 Outside Core Except Core (2) 70.4% 10% 7% comparatively small part of the urban area Total 100.0% 31% because of the suburbanization that has Auto-competitive service factor assumed for analysis. occurred over the past one-half century. Paris data from INSEE & IAURF, 2000. Most new world urban areas simply do not or no longer have dense urban cores. The situation is even less favorable in public transport markets without dense urban cores. For example, Portland, has implemented strong policies that system began its transition to competitive to increase public transport use. Virtually none of tendering (Cox, 1993). the urban area’s jobs are accessible by public transport service that takes the same or less time 2.6 Non-Market Infrastructure Investment than traveling by auto. At an auto-competitiveness definition of 1.5 times the travel time of the auto, Investment, like operations, became the province of 17% of the jobs in the urban area are accessible from government enterprises. The lack of market the average residential location. However, there is a discipline has led to sub optimal, if not distorted big disparity --- 69% of CBD jobs are accessible, but investment decisions favoring projects inherently only 4% of non-CBD jobs are accessible. Further, more expensive and as a result, less mobility and work-trip auto-competitiveness is likely to be access producing. considerably greater than for other trips, since many express services are provided to the CBD during Many older high-income urban areas have rail peak commuting periods (Cox, 2002a). In this systems that have continued to carry substantial weaker market, public transport provides auto- volumes of passengers in and to dense cores (such as competitive service only to a niche market. Tokyo, Osaka, Paris, London and New York).

Summarized, a principal reason that public But new urban rail systems (light rail, metro, transport has suffered substantial market share losses regional or commuter rail) have been built in urban is that auto-competitive service has not been areas without the urban form that justified the provided for such a large share of urban travel historic rail systems. This is especially true in the demand. Put in marketing terms, public transport United States and Canada, where interests advance resembles a producer driven firm that “takes people new rail systems on the claim that they will reduce where the system goes,” In a consumer driven auto traffic congestion and improve mobility. In economy, this leads to lower market shares. fact, new urban rail systems generally tend to provide service to virtually the same market already Admittedly, the changing urban form and served by auto-competitive service, the CBD (most democratization of personal mobility have made new rail urban areas do not have dense urban cores). public transport’s challenge more complex. But, at least two factors under the control of public New urban rail systems have proven to be transport, excessive operating costs and distorted comparatively expensive. For example, rapid bus infrastructure investments, have made results much can generally deliver the same level of public less favorable than they might otherwise have been transport service for one-fifth the cost per passenger (Japan is an exception, where most public transport kilometer of urban rail strategies (Kain et al, 1992). is self supporting, both infrastructure and Moreover, rapid bus systems tend to operate at operations). higher speeds (US Government Accounting Office, 2001). The policy distortion arises from the fact that 2.5 Non-Market Operating Costs perhaps five times as much mobility and access could be provided with technologies other than Throughout Western Europe and the new world, urban rail. public transport systems became government owned monopolies from the 1930s through the 1970s. The The distortion of US investment is fed by the original intention, express by London Transport unique characteristics of the local political system, founder Herbert Morrison, was that employees and with its special interest influence and generous managers of government enterprises, without a central government funding. This provides profit motive, would place the interests of riders and incentives for pro-rail interests to seek new the community first. The opposite occurred, as the matching local taxes to pay for urban rail systems. lack of market discipline led to inordinate cost escalation. US expenditures rose 215% from 1970 to The new urban rail systems have thus resulted in 1999 (real), while ridership rose 11%, for an over-investment of scarce financial resources. The increase of 182% per passenger kilometer. This over-investment extends to the physical declining productivity was in contrast to the characteristics as well. For example, light rail improved productivity that occurred in virtually all systems generally have a top capacity of 15,000 to competitive transport industries in the United States 20,000 riders per hour, peak direction. Demand in In Canada, operating costs rose 180% from 1970 to US light rail corridors is so slight that hourly peak 2000, while passenger journeys increased 50%, for one-way service levels generally accommodate less an 89% increase in operating cost per passenger than 3,000. Similarly, metros can carry 40,000 per (Cox, 2002b). London Transport bus costs per hour, peak direction. But metros in Baltimore and kilometer rose 70% from 1970 to 1984, just before Miami carry fewer that 50,000 riders all day in both directions. This is despite the fact that both systems commuting trips. The additional commuting by serve the CBDs, the largest employment centers in public transport was so slight that in each urban area the areas. This illustrates the declining importance of it would have been less expensive to lease a new corridors in the modern, dispersed urban area. automobile in perpetuity for each new commuter (Cox, 2002b) In pursuing urban rail strategies, public transport has been preoccupied with development of While historic market share information is less corridors. Corridors may be an obsolete term in readily available in Canada and Australia, public many urban areas. It is true that geographical transport per capita journeys have been level or boundaries and very large CBDs influence demand declining in urban areas that have constructed new into corridors. This is true with CBDs approaching rail systems. To have materially reduced traffic or exceeding 1,000,000 jobs, such as in Tokyo, New congestion would have required large per-capita York, London and Paris. Geographical barriers, such increases in public transport ridership as the rivers in New York, with their limited crossing points, also focus traffic into corridors. But • The Perth regional rail system has been these circumstances are not typical of most modern expanded approximately 50% in the last urban areas. The majority of employment is outside decade. Yet, per capita public transport the CBDs to which traditional corridors lead and ridership is lower than 10 years ago. commuting is no longer generally corridor based. • Per capita annual journeys have fallen 7% in One might observe motorways with congested Calgary, 15% in Vancouver and 42% in traffic throughout an urban area, but travelers are Edmonton since before new rail systems headed for widely dispersed destinations that may opened. begin and/or end far from the motorway corridor. Because autos are able to quickly and conveniently 2.7 Lack of a Comprehensive Vision access the motorway from much greater distances than a patron can walk to a public transport station, Even in the auto-oriented US, the high public corridors have become much wider (Gerondeau, transport market shares to employment locations 1997). In fact, the urban motorway or high capacity with significant levels of auto-competitive service arterial has become a conduit for virtually millions demonstrates the attractiveness of public transport. of mini-corridors represented by the individual But in most urban areas, public transport had no origin and destination patterns a higher dispersed overall vision for competing with the automobile residential and commercial urban form. Wider, less beyond what might be termed “on the margin.” The intense auto-oriented corridors have rendered new rail services generally served the same CBD expensive and necessarily narrow high capacity markets as already existing services, with little or no public transport corridors less suitable for most new service to the newer residential and urban travel demand. employment areas. The excessive operating costs and distorted infrastructure policies made delivery of Over-investment in high capacity systems has, an auto-competitive vision even less feasible. like excessive unit costs, resulted in rationing of public transport service. Because more than The result, at least in Western Europe and the necessary has been spent to build high capacity rail New World, is that auto-competitive public transport corridor systems, fewer corridors have been built, service is available only to residents of dense urban and less auto-competitive service has been provided. cores (which do not exist in many urban areas) and In consequence, more customers have chosen to CBD commuters. Dense urban cores represent a travel by auto than might have otherwise been the declining share of urban area population, while case. CBDs represent a comparatively small and declining share of urban area employment For example, the Finally, there is little, if any evidence that new New York CBD represents 20% of employment, rail systems have reduced traffic congestion (Cox, while Paris and London are less than 20%. The 2002b). Automobile work trip market shares have world’s largest CBD, in Tokyo has less than 15% of increased in 13 of the 15 new rail urban areas, with urban area employment (Cox. 2002b). the average motorized share rising from 92.0% to 93.9%. The two decreases (Los Angeles and Salt A starting point for an auto-competitive vision Lake City) were modest, at less than 0.5%. In the would have been a regional service specification. An new rail urban areas, public transport shares auto-competitive service specification could be declined an average of 23.4% (from 8.0% to 6.1%). stated in terms such as the following examples: Overall auto commuting increased an average of 27.5%, while public transport commuting increased • The ultimate specification would be for 8.5%. Public transport captured 2.5% of new public transport to provide auto-competitive service from 100% of the origins in the or New World counterparts. This makes it possible service area to 100% of the destinations. to provide much higher levels of service. Both • Another alternative would be for public Tokyo-Yokohama and Osaka-Kobe-Kyoto have transport to provide auto-competitive service extensive rail systems, including central city metros, from 80% of the residences in the service regional rail provided by privatized elements of the area to 80% of the jobs. former national rail operator (JNR) and extensive privately owned systems. There is little public For the purposes of the service specification, subsidy, especially with respect to the former JNR auto-competitiveness could be defined as origin to and private services. Because such a large part of the destination service as fast as the auto, or 1.5 times as public transport market is self supporting (from fast as the auto. Further issues would include a commercial revenues), public transport is able to maximum distance from each origin and destination provide a better match to the travel demands of (such as a walking distance of 400 meters), consumers. Public transport ridership is so high that minimum service frequencies and minimum hours of the Tokyo-Yokohama volume is more than double service. that of the entire US, while the Osaka-Kobe-Kyoto ridership is nearly the same as the US. Nearly as important as a service-specification based public transport vision would be an evaluation 2.9 Assessment system to measure the extent to which the policy objective is achieved. An auto-competitiveness If public transport productivity had been maintained index similar to that illustrated for a prototypical or improved, much higher levels of service could urban area above would be appropriate. have been provided, which could have made it possible for public transport to retain more of its While there are few, if any adopted service market. Significant progress has been made toward specifications, they can be inferred from existing improving public transport’s cost performance service designs. through competition in recent years, but the decades of poor economic performance have exacted a heavy • In stronger public transport markets such as toll. It seems likely, for example, that public London, Paris, Toronto, and New York the transport’s failure to provide auto-competitive inferred service specification appears to be to service outside historic markets was at least a factor provide auto-competitive service within the in monopolization of the new markets by the auto. dense urban core and for travel from outside the core to CBD employment. This It has been suggested that a ten-year conversion specification may accommodate a majority to competitive tendering in the US could have of the trips within the dense core, but financed a 74% increase in service and a 64% excludes most trips to destinations outside increase in public transport market share. This the dense core, which tend to represent a illustrates the extent to which higher than market majority of travel. operating costs have limited service levels. The • In weaker public transport markets, such as analysis did not consider infrastructure investment Portland, Adelaide and Winnipeg, the distortions (Cox, 1993). inferred service specification appears to be to provide auto-competitive service to CBD For lower-income urban areas to avoid the failures employment, and little more. This of their high-income counterparts will require specification excludes most work trips and avoiding the following characteristics that have an even larger percentage of trips for other typified high-income urban public transport, and purposes. which are also under industry or government control. Auto-competitive service is a prerequisite to maintaining or materially increasing public transport • Excessive operating costs. market shares. Without it, expectations that public • Distorted infrastructure investment transport can transform the urban form can mislead • Lack of a comprehensive vision both governments and the public. 3. LOWER INCOME URBAN AREAS 2.8 The Exception: Japan 3.1 Background The much higher public transport market shares in Japan reflect much different environmental and Urban areas outside high-income nations are both operating conditions. The large Japanese urban areas similar and different from their high-income are much more dense than their Western European counterparts. The most obvious difference is that they are less affluent. Their residents, however, seek district market share per decade from 1970 to 1990 affluence as surely as those in high-income urban (Kenworthy & Laube, 2000). Like urban areas in the areas. Automobiles are already plentiful in most high-income world, lower-income urban areas are lower-income urban areas, though their market developing “edge cities,” such as Navi-Mumbai and penetration remains comparatively small. With a Santa Fe in Mexico City; large part of the public transport market “captive,” high ridership levels are possible with little auto- 3.3 The Limits of Density competitiveness. However, as people become more affluent, more cars will be available, which will add Population density thresholds are often cited in to the traffic congestion that may already be serious. urban transport analysis, especially US research (Pushkarev, Zupan & Cumella, 1982). But this 3.2 Urban Development Trends analysis is limited to CBD oriented trips and does not deal with broader access to other locations Urban areas outside the high-income world are throughout the urban area. While density thresholds remarkably like high-income urban areas with may be useful for some analytical purposes, the respect to urban development trends. Generally, simple fact is that if public transport to have any urban areas are sprawling rapidly, some for decades. hope to compete with cars, it must take people from Densities tend to be greater, but residential and job where they are to where they want to go at an auto- locations are already decentralized to a great degree. competitive travel time. What the particular density is where their trip begins or ends matters little. In some lower-income urban areas, like high- income urban areas, virtually all population growth For example, a commuter to the eastern fringe of has been outside the core for decades. For example Shanghai’s Pudong business district (an “edge city” (Cox, W, 2002b): on the east bank of the Pu River, across from downtown) and lives in the Changling ward of • Since 1970 suburbs of Mexico City have western Shanghai, (less than 20 kilometers) is likely accommodated 80% of growth The core to use an available car if public transport takes districts of Cuauhtomec and Miguel Hidalgo considerably longer. It does not matter that the have lost 45% of their population since 1960. worker’s residential density may be more than • Since 1947, all growth in Buenos Aires has 40,000 per km2 or that the employment density may been outside the city. The 2001 Census also be high. The worker may not have the car indicates that the central city sustained an today, but as China’s economy improves, is likely to 8% population loss in the last decade. in the future. • Only 50,000 of Mumbai’s nearly 8,000,000 new residents since 1981 were added to the As affluence improves, providing auto core city districts. Over the period, more competitive service only to the CBD or within the than one-half of the new residents were dense core of Mexico City, Buenos Aires, Mumbai, added in the suburbs outside city of Mumbai. or other lower-income urban areas will be as From 1981 to 1991 two central districts lost destructive to public transport market share as it has more than 20% of their population (Marine been in high-income urban areas. Like in high- Lines and Sandhurst Road: the 2001 data is income urban areas, the concept of transport not yet available). corridors is likely to become less relevant in lower- • During the last two decades, even the income urban areas. world’s most dense urban area, Hong Kong, has seen central area declines, with all 3.5 Appropriate and Inappropriate Strategies growth occurring in suburban areas. The core of Kowloon has lost more than 20% of its Some lower-income urban areas are emulating or population since 1981. seek to emulate the transport strategies of higher • The Seoul area continues to grow strongly, income urban areas, with particular emphasis on yet during from 1992 to 1999, the central high capital strategies, such as new Metros. There city of Seoul lost 600,000 residents. are notable examples, such as Curitiba, Belo Horizonte and Bogota, where less costly busway Moreover, as in high-income urban areas, lower- strategies are extending higher quality public income urban areas have decentralized transport service to much larger markets than would commercially. The average CBD employment share be possible with more expensive rail systems. is approximately 25% in nine lower-income urban areas for which data is available. They range in size 3.6 Applying the Lessons from under 11% in Buenos Aires to 46% in Surabaya. Singapore lost 26% of its central business For lower-income urban areas to preserve the competitive services as automobile ownership highest possible public transport market shares as increases. And, as greater amounts of auto- affluence increases will require strategies consistent competitive service are provided, public transport with the following principles. will have the potential to retain higher market shares than has occurred in the higher-income world, where • Competitive administrative and operational the scarcity of such service has contributed, at least frameworks (such as commercial services to some degree, to the rapid market dominance of and competitive tendering) should be the automobile. Higher market shares could be adopted that make it possible to produce retained both because people with autos will find service for a cost no higher than necessary. public transport convenient for some trips and This will make it possible to maximize both because others will simply decide not to purchase service and the effectiveness of any autos because the quality of public transport service government financial resources. makes them unnecessary. • Infrastructure investment should be determined based upon the maximum For urban transport to achieve its potential for transportation benefit. This means that, all contributing to the economic advancement of things being equal, systems relying on buses, lower-income urban areas, it will be necessary for smaller vehicles and perhaps personalized public policy to focus on a simple objective --- the rapid transit are likely to be adopted instead provision of the highest level of urgent and of higher capacity, more expensive urban rail comprehensive public transport service possible systems. This will also make it possible to within resource constraints. maximize public transport service. • Service should be designed and implemented REFERENCES based upon a service specification that maximizes the trips can be rationally Cox, W. & Love, J., 1993, Reinventing Transit: Putting considered auto-competitive. The public Customers First, (Washington: American Legislative transport system must be consumer oriented, Exchange Council). rather than producer oriented. It must, to the Cox, W., 2002a, Smart Growth and Housing Affordability, greatest extent feasible, “take people where (Washington: Millennial Housing Commission). they want to go.” System performance relative to the service specification should be Cox, W, 2002b, Urgent and Comprehensive Planning for Low regularly evaluated and the results made Income Urban Areas: References (Internet: Urban Transport available to the public. Fact Book www.publicpurpose.com/ut-codatu2002.htm).

Because of the natural tendency of the Center for Transportation Research, 1998, Public Transit in America: Findings from the 1995 Nationwide Personal commercial market to more efficiently allocate Transportation Survey (Tampa: University of South Florida). operating and infrastructure resources, service designs that do not rely on government subsidy are Gerondeau, C., 1997, Transport in Europe, (Boston: Artech likely to be more successful. House).

Summarized, this means that, for public transport INSEE & IAURF, 2000, Atlas des Franceliens. to maximize its potential and retain the highest possible market share: Kain, J., Gitte, R., Daniere, A., Summerville, T., & Zhi, L., 1992, Increasing the Productivity of the Nation’s Urban Transportation Infrastructure, (Washington: United States • The commercial consumer oriented Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration).. policies that drive public transport in Japan would be best emulated Prud'homme, R. & Chong-Woon Lee, 1998, Size, Sprawl, • The producer oriented policies of Western Speed and the Efficiency of Cities, (Paris: Observatoire de Europe and the New World should be l'Economie et des Institutions Locales). avoided. Pushkarev, B.S. with. Zupan, J.M. &. Cumella, R.S., 1982, Urban Rail in America An Exploration of Criteria for Fixed- 4. CONCLUSION Guideway Transit (New York: Regional Plan Association).

Application of theses principles would maximize U.S. Government Accounting Office, September 2001, Mass present service availability and access to labor Transit: Bus Rapid Transit Shows Promise (Washington). markets within the urban area, thereby contributing to overall and individual economic progress. Further, such designs would position the public transport system for development of auto